Archdiocese of Cincinnati expands morals clause in teacher contracts

[saintjohnxxiii]

As a parent whose kids have been told by a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school that abortion is a choice that saves women’s lives, I’m all for this.

As a parent whose kids have been told by a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school that abortion isn’t murder and the Church’s position on it is still up in the air, I’m all for this.

As a parent whose kids have been told by a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school that women in the priesthood isn’t far off, I’m all for this.

As a parent whose pre-teen daughter was given a CD by a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school that contained lyrics that would be bleeped on the radio, I’m all for this.

As a parent whose son was taught by a teacher in his Catholic high school that the Church doesn’t hold a monopoly on truth and has ruined more lives than She’s saved, I’m all for this.

If an employee of a Catholic school is not only not going to enforce the teachings of the Church, but is going to openly speak out against them, the school should not only have a right to get rid of the teacher but should view it as a duty.

One of the best posts I have ever read on CAF!:clapping::clapping:

 

[Elizium23]

I have the opposite wish, and look forward to a larger, more inclusive church.

You can have it today! Google “inclusive catholic church” and then have at it! We’ll be waving down from our Heavenly reward.

 

[Coatimundi]

In reference to your comment that “the voluntary part here is taking a job.” Do you have the same standard for pharmacists, for instance, who refuse to fill prescriptions they don’t approve of? By your criteria, they should be fired if they refuse.

If an employer feels that a professional is not fulfilling the responsibilities of his position, then I would expect the employer to fire that person. Whether an employer feels the behavior is not important enough to terminate a worker, is really the decision of the employer. If the employer feels the that the behavior of the employee can be corrected, this may enter into the decision.

The responsibilities and standards of a given position is determined by the employer. He will be the one to decide whether to keep or fire an employee. The new contract from the archdiocese doesn’t seem to be out of line.

 

[Mulligan2]

You can have it today! Google “inclusive catholic church” and then have at it! We’ll be waving down from our Heavenly reward.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your previous post in reference to your wanting a smaller Catholic Church. However, with this recent post, there doesn’t seem to be any ambiguity, as you seem overly interested in how Catholicism can help you feel superior to others. I say this with all due respect and charity - if this is how your coming across to fellow Catholics on an internet forum, perhaps you should assess how you’re coming across to others in the course of your daily life. Living a positive life and being a good example for others is one of the best ways to demonstrate Catholicism. It’s not about looking down on others, as you phrased it.

 

[Mulligan2]

If an employer feels that a professional is not fulfilling the responsibilities of his position, then I would expect the employer to fire that person. Whether an employer feels the behavior is not important enough to terminate a worker, is really the decision of the employer. If the employer feels the that the behavior of the employee can be corrected, this may enter into the decision.

The responsibilities and standards of a given position is determined by the employer. He will be the one to decide whether to keep or fire an employee. The new contract from the archdiocese doesn’t seem to be out of line.

How would it be enforced? How would the diocese find out if an employee had violated one of the lines of the contract?

 

[Coatimundi]

How would it be enforced? How would the diocese find out if an employee had violated one of the lines of the contract?

My guess is that violations will be enforced when they are publicized e.g. a wedding announcement for a same-sex marriage, or an appearance on the local news talking about the *in vitro *fertilization which a teacher and spouse obtained.

I can’t be sure, but I doubt that archdiocese will create a TCIS (Teacher Contract Investigation Service.)

 

[markomalley]

I can’t be sure, but I doubt that archdiocese will create a TCIS (Teacher Contract Investigation Service.)

Nobody expects the Ohio Inquisition!

 

[bben15]

This will be a good way to root out Cafeteria Catholic teachers. :extrahappy:

 

[Gordon_Sims]

How would it be enforced? How would the diocese find out if an employee had violated one of the lines of the contract?

An unmarried teacher shows up pregnant. An unmarried teacher tells coworkers or students that he/she moved in with their SO. A teacher tells their students that the Church is wrong about some issue. A teacher tells kids that abortion is an acceptable choice, that it’s a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, that it’s not actually a baby being killed, that the verdict is still out on whether the Church will keep opposing it (all of which we heard from our daughters). A teacher promotes/preaches the goodness of abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. on Facebook. A teacher gives kids promotional materials for Planned Parenthood. These are just a few examples, some of which I’ve read about in various cases in the news, others of which come from personal experience. I’ve complained to the school and our priest in a few cases and wouldn’t hesitate to take my complaints even higher if something wasn’t done or the issue continued.

 

[esieffe]

What’s the difference between “publicly living together…” and the corollary, which I assume would be “privately living together…”?

The distinction is that by publicly living together, the curtains must remain open in said dwelling at all times!

 

[Corki]

How would it be enforced? How would the diocese find out if an employee had violated one of the lines of the contract?

This contract expansion is in reaction to real examples in this and other dioceses. It just makes the rule more explicit.

Some real life examples that have happened over the last several years:

Woman living with her lesbian lover is listed as such in a family members obituary.
Teacher is seen by people praying outside an abortion clinic. She volunteers as an escort.
Woman asks for time off for her IVF treatments.
Male employee lists a same sex partner as “husband” on his new hire paperwork.
Teacher gives student a referral for an abortion.
Employee invites coworkers to her civil marriage since she “can’t” get married in the Church after her divorce.

Unfortunately, this is just a short list.

 

[Spudbynight]

Moreover, he cannot require that a penitent implicate himself as a condition of absolution or as a penance he imposes.

Sure he can give that as a penance. For example it would be unheard of for a murderer to confess and not be told to turn himself in as his penance. What people forget is that the penance given is voluntary.

 

[Corki]

Sure he can give that as a penance. For example it would be unheard of for a murderer to confess and not be told to turn himself in as his penance. What people forget is that the penance given is voluntary.

No, the priest cannot make that his penance or a condition for absolution. He can certainly urge him to turn himself but he cannot in any way coerce or force him to do so.

 

[Mulligan2]

This contract expansion is in reaction to real examples in this and other dioceses. It just makes the rule more explicit.

Some real life examples that have happened over the last several years:

Woman living with her lesbian lover is listed as such in a family members obituary.
Teacher is seen by people praying outside an abortion clinic. She volunteers as an escort.
Woman asks for time off for her IVF treatments.
Male employee lists a same sex partner as “husband” on his new hire paperwork.
Teacher gives student a referral for an abortion.
Employee invites coworkers to her civil marriage since she “can’t” get married in the Church after her divorce.

Unfortunately, this is just a short list.

This definitely blurs the lines of the typical employer / employee relationship. In almost all situations, an employee’s private life is just that - private. And does this go beyond teachers? What about other school personnel such as cafeteria workers, custodians, etc? Are they subject to this as well? If so, why?

 

[Just_Lurking]

And does this go beyond teachers? What about other school personnel such as cafeteria workers, custodians, etc? Are they subject to this as well? If so, why?

In Corki’s list, the “Male employee lists a same sex partner as ‘husband’ on his new hire paperwork” was not a teacher but a food services director.

 

[Trader]

No, the priest cannot make that his penance or a condition for absolution. He can certainly urge him to turn himself but he cannot in any way coerce or force him to do so.

This is possible in certain circumstances. Suppose I confess to a murder where an innocent person has been arrested and faces a trial, imprisonment, or even a death penalty. If I am unwilling to confess to free the innocent man, the priest must withhold absolution because I am unwilling to amend my life and am continuing another grave sin. It could be argued that even allowing an expensive murder investigation to continue where no one has been arrested is a grave injustice, and would make absolution inappropriate.

 

[Lapey]

This definitely blurs the lines of the typical employer / employee relationship. In almost all situations, an employee’s private life is just that - private. And does this go beyond teachers? What about other school personnel such as cafeteria workers, custodians, etc? Are they subject to this as well? If so, why?

What part of “Catholic” do you not understand? Don’t concentrate so much on the “school” part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part and you may start to see why your thinking is off the mark. Just a thought that may help.

The relationship which is and has been blurred for the last couple of decades at least has been the institution/student relationship. The product is the student well formed in Catholic teaching and not worldly teaching. The product is not the teachers or any other workers at the school. The only thing that matters is the result that a fully equipped Catholic graduate who has been prepared for life as a Catholic and also prepared for future academic studies and/or a fruitful career and someone who is prepared to bring in the next generation of Catholics.

The school’s purpose is not to be what you see as “fair” to its workers. Every person employed to interact with these children must be held to the Catholic teachings; don’t like that, look for employment in the secular world. The Catholic education institutions are not secular and no one has a “right” to be employed by these institutions.

 

[Corki]

This is possible in certain circumstances. Suppose I confess to a murder where an innocent person has been arrested and faces a trial, imprisonment, or even a death penalty. If I am unwilling to confess to free the innocent man, the priest must withhold absolution because I am unwilling to amend my life and am continuing another grave sin. It could be argued that even allowing an expensive murder investigation to continue where no one has been arrested is a grave injustice, and would make absolution inappropriate.

As long as you are truly sorry and have no expressed intention to murder again, the priest would be wrong to withhold absolution. Restitution is a separate issue. Absolution cannot be conditional on the restitution.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

 

[Corki]

This definitely blurs the lines of the typical employer / employee relationship. In almost all situations, an employee’s private life is just that - private. And does this go beyond teachers? What about other school personnel such as cafeteria workers, custodians, etc? Are they subject to this as well? If so, why?

I’ll take your last question first, I believe that the story in the OP was about teacher contracts. The other employees should still be held to high moral standards but are likely not contracted employees.

Which leads to your first statement. Most employees do not have contracts. An employee without a contract can be fired for any reason, including known immoral activity in his/her “private” life. Secular employers are usually more concerned about activity that makes them look bad but there has never been an expectation that “anything goes” as long as it’s outside the workplace. Certain activities are “protected” but most personal activity is actionable if the employer objects. For example, I once was given a job application that stated a code of conduct which included not smoking, drinking or swearing. Being seen, at work or outside of work, doing any of these would be grounds for dismissal.

But an employee with a contract can only be fired for violating the contract. Even with this contract, anything an employee does in private isn’t really an issue; it’s personal behavior that is done openly (not privately) that could be a violation of the contract. That is why the teachers, who are contracted employees, need more specificity in their morals clauses.

 

[Lapey]

In reference to your comment that “the voluntary part here is taking a job.” Do you have the same standard for pharmacists, for instance, who refuse to fill prescriptions they don’t approve of? By your criteria, they should be fired if they refuse.

This may not be the best of examples here. If a teacher at a Catholic School goes against Mother Church and is fired because of this they still have the option of employment in a secular school. There is no right to work in a Catholic school exclusively; especially if you do not live the faith in which you are teaching.

In the same way a pharmacist can be terminated for refusing to fill objectionable contraceptive prescriptions, I know one such pharmacist. He now owns his own pharmacy and has come under fire in the community in the past because he does not sell ANY form of contraceptives in his privately owned store; nor does he offer anything which is objectionable to the Church and Her teachings. He is a deacon in the Church and lives his faith fully. Let me ask you, should he be forced to provide to the public these items which he feels go against his conscience?